Five Penny House

Updated 4 March 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Service and service type

Five Penny House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. The registered manager was very newly registered with CQC.

Notice of inspection

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. The PIR was completed some time ago but still provided relevant details. This information helps support our inspections. We received feedback from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service. Not everyone who used the service was able speak with us during the inspection. We spoke with seven members of staff including the registered manager, senior care worker and five support staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and their medication records. We looked at one staff file in relation to recruitment and staff records relating to training and supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We sought additional information from the service regarding training and quality assurance records.

Updated 4 March 2020

About the service

Five Penny House is a purpose built house, providing support to people living with a learning disability and physical disabilities. It was registered to support up to six people. Six people were using the service at the time of inspection. Staff supporting people did not wear a uniform or any identifying clothing that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people, and people were supported to have access to local community facilities and services.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There was a new registered manager at the home who had just completed their application process with the Care Quality Commission. They had a clear vision and values and had already made positive changes at the service.

Medicines were stored safely and staff were trained to administer them correctly. We found records relating to 'as and when required' medicines needed to be improved and the registered manager actioned this immediately.

Staff knew people well and supported people in line with the person’s preferences and wishes.

There were enough staff to support people and staff were always visible. Staff received support and a variety of appropriate training to meet people’s needs.

Individualised risk assessments were in place. Staff were confident they would raise concerns to safeguard people. Robust recruitment and selection procedures ensured suitable staff were employed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to access healthcare services if needed. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and staff were trained to support people who had different dietary needs.

Interactions we saw between people and the staff team were positive. We saw people given immediate reassurance when they became anxious or distressed.

Care plans were person centred and people were involved in their reviews where they were able. The service actively supported people to engage with advocacy services if this was needed.

People were supported to engage in activities they enjoyed, and we saw the service promoted people accessing local community facilities and supporting them to go on trips and holidays.

There were systems in place for communicating with staff, people and their relatives to ensure they were fully informed. This was via team meetings, phone calls and emails. People had good links to the local community through regular access to local services.

Audits and monitoring systems were used effectively to manage the service and to make improvements as and when required.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.